Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871339 --- Comment #3 from Siddharth Sharma <siddharth.kde@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #2) > Package Review > ============== > > Key: > [x] = Pass > [!] = Fail > [-] = Not applicable > [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > Issues: > ======= > [!]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that > are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. > Note: These BR are not needed: gcc-c++ > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 > > > ===== MUST items ===== > > C/C++: > [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. > [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) > [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. > [x]: Package contains no static executables. > [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. > > Generic: > [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets > other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging > Guidelines. > > GPLv3 > > [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least > one > supported primary architecture. > [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. > [!]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that > are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. > Note: These BR are not needed: gcc-c++ > [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. > [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. > [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the > beginning of %install. > Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required > [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. > [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 > [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. > [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. > [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package > [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. > [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. > [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. > [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. > [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines > [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. > [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) > in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) > for the package is included in %doc. > [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: > "*No copyright* GPL (v3)". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output > of licensecheck in /home/rberry/review-jmtpfs/licensecheck.txt > [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory > names). > [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. > [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. > [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. > Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) > [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist > [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. > [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and > Provides are present. > [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > [x]: Package installs properly. > [x]: Package is not relocatable. > [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. > [x]: CheckResultdir > [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. > Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). > [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided > in the spec URL. > [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. > [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format > %{name}.spec. > [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. > [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. > [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. > [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. > Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 1 files. > [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local > > ===== SHOULD items ===== > > Generic: > [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. > [!]: Buildroot is not present > Note: Invalid buildroot found: BuildRoot: > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) > [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) > > These should be removed unless building for epel is intended. > > [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > file > from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. > > GPLv3 COPYING file included. > > [x]: Dist tag is present. > [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. > [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q > --requires). > [?]: Package functions as described. > [?]: Latest version is packaged. > [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. > [?]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. > [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. > [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. > [!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. > Note: Patch0 (getuid-not-defined.patch) > [x]: SourceX is a working URL. > [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains > translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. > [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported > architectures. > [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. > [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. > [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. > > ===== EXTRA items ===== > > Generic: > [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. > Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). > [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package > is > arched. > > > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: jmtpfs-0.4-1.fc16.i686.rpm > jmtpfs-debuginfo-0.4-1.fc16.i686.rpm > jmtpfs-0.4-1.fc16.src.rpm > jmtpfs.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libmtp -> Librium > jmtpfs.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libmtp -> Librium > jmtpfs.i686: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.4.1 ['0.4-1.fc16', '0.4-1'] > jmtpfs.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jmtpfs > jmtpfs.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libmtp -> Librium > jmtpfs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libmtp -> Librium > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. > > Spelling warnings can be safely ignored. Version in changelog must be fixed. > '0.4-1' > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > # rpmlint jmtpfs-debuginfo jmtpfs > jmtpfs-debuginfo.i686: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US > jmtpfs.i686: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.4.1 ['0.4-1.fc16', '0.4-1'] > jmtpfs.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jmtpfs > 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. > # echo 'rpmlint-done:' > > > > Requires > -------- > jmtpfs-0.4-1.fc16.i686.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > > fuse > libc.so.6 > libdl.so.2 > libfuse.so.2 > libfuse.so.2(FUSE_2.5) > libfuse.so.2(FUSE_2.6) > libfuse.so.2(FUSE_2.8) > libgcc_s.so.1 > libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) > libm.so.6 > libmagic.so.1 > libmtp.so.9 > libpthread.so.0 > librt.so.1 > libstdc++.so.6 > libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3) > libusb-1.0.so.0 > rtld(GNU_HASH) > > jmtpfs-debuginfo-0.4-1.fc16.i686.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > > > > > Provides > -------- > jmtpfs-0.4-1.fc16.i686.rpm: > > jmtpfs = 0.4-1.fc16 > jmtpfs(x86-32) = 0.4-1.fc16 > > jmtpfs-debuginfo-0.4-1.fc16.i686.rpm: > > jmtpfs-debuginfo = 0.4-1.fc16 > jmtpfs-debuginfo(x86-32) = 0.4-1.fc16 > > > > MD5-sum check > ------------- > http://research.jacquette.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/jmtpfs-0.4.tar.gz : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > a7913c1c2fa4899b55db52bee4fc6c38d31e0935aab9e0bfa2ff56388e5bf014 > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > a7913c1c2fa4899b55db52bee4fc6c38d31e0935aab9e0bfa2ff56388e5bf014 > > > Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16 > Buildroot used: fedora-16-i386 > Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -u > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871339 Rebuilt SPEC: http://siddharths.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/jmtpfs.spec SRPM : http://siddharths.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/jmtpfs-0.4-2.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review